Re: is struct utimbuf in the standard sys/types.h?

Thread View: comp.std.unix

1 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

1 total messages Started by Donn Terry Wed, 08 Aug 1990 22:59

#428

Author: Donn Terry
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 1990 22:59

25 lines
1449 bytes

From:  Donn Terry <donn@hpfcrn.fc.hp.com>

(more for "is struct utimbuf".

>I am having some difficulty following the above.  How can a portable
>application do anything to vendor-defined fields?  Isn't the
>application non-portable as soon as it does anything (read or write)
>to a vendor-defined field?

>Is this explained by "strictly conforming" vs. "conforming"?

The point is that a portable application CAN'T know the names of the
fields (otherwise it's not portable).  Given that, how does it initialize
them.  It can't.  Given that it can't, introducing extensions to structures
that are not initialized by the OS, and which don't have an "enable feature"
flag (as do some of the I/O related stuff with flag words) is a bad idea.
(The "enable feature" flags get you out because setting bits other than
those defined by the standard gets you into the "unspecified" space, thus
the portable application cannot set those bits.)

Donn Terry
Same old disclaimer, again.


Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 25

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads